Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 46
  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    180
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 49 Times in 35 Posts
    Congratulations
    7
    Congratulated 14 Times in 2 Posts

    All this arguing about states selling land is silly because your federal saviors are the ones that created the rules that require the states to sell, trade, or barter that land for their school systems. Most states today have recognized that giving up ownership to the land is a financial loss, they realize that developing the resources and using the land for hunting and fishing is a long term, renewable solution to their cash needs. Personally I think a trust composed of both federal and state representative is the best solution, a trust that will not allow the land to be sold, it can only be leased within a specific set of rules for recovering the land for other uses afterwards.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    2,093
    Thanks
    695
    Thanked 989 Times in 641 Posts
    Congratulations
    377
    Congratulated 99 Times in 35 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rammont View Post
    All this arguing about states selling land is silly because your federal saviors are the ones that created the rules that require the states to sell, trade, or barter that land for their school systems. Most states today have recognized that giving up ownership to the land is a financial loss, they realize that developing the resources and using the land for hunting and fishing is a long term, renewable solution to their cash needs. Personally I think a trust composed of both federal and state representative is the best solution, a trust that will not allow the land to be sold, it can only be leased within a specific set of rules for recovering the land for other uses afterwards.

    yet they still sell it off.

    MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A BLESSED NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOURS!
    AS GOES THE CHURCH, SO GOES THE NATION

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Illinois
    Posts
    642
    Thanks
    68
    Thanked 202 Times in 153 Posts
    Congratulations
    17
    Congratulated 28 Times in 8 Posts
    it can only be leased within a specific set of rules
    And here is another part of the problem. Don't sell it off but lease it out.............

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    570
    Thanks
    164
    Thanked 464 Times in 222 Posts
    Congratulations
    148
    Congratulated 177 Times in 32 Posts
    Almost exactly one year ago, several Wyoming legislators proposed an amendment to the Wyoming Constitution that supposedly would have prohibited the sale of federal land transferred to the state. Somehow they thought that would appease those of us who were afraid the land would be sold. They were wrong!

    Hundreds of people turned out at two committee meetings to object to the amendment. Thousands more sent emails. We were not about to be fooled by a promise not to sell. They could still lease the land and/or otherwise over-develop it.

    Click below to see a video of people testifying against the amendment at a committee meeting in Cheyenne. Shortly thereafter sponsors tabled the bill that would have put the Constitutional Amendment on the ballet. Note that this video received 226,000 views. This issue received intense interest and concern!

    https://www.facebook.com/WYHAA/videos/1795697197314437/
    Don't fence me in!

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    Posts
    375
    Thanks
    275
    Thanked 105 Times in 76 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 22 Times in 7 Posts
    Iowa is tough; moved here 15 yrs ago, I think on paper we're on the short list for states with little to no public hunting lands.

    Of course, after 15 yrs as a resident, I've been able to find some hidden gems of public here in Iowa where you can get on a nice deer or some birds, but still its few and far between. Probably why I prefer to hunt out west or back 'home' in PA-still large tracts of public land in both areas.

    Not that Randy N is the final word, but thought it interesting he got skunked public deer hunting in IA on one of his shows. I did a lot of head nodding watching that episode.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Prerylyon For This Useful Post:


  7. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bend, Orygun
    Posts
    1,231
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 402 Times in 298 Posts
    Congratulations
    2
    Congratulated 11 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kidoggy View Post
    yet they still sell it off.

    MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A BLESSED NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOURS!

    They don't have to sell 1 square inch to keep the public off it.

  8. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    idaho
    Posts
    2,093
    Thanks
    695
    Thanked 989 Times in 641 Posts
    Congratulations
    377
    Congratulated 99 Times in 35 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by WapitiBob View Post
    They don't have to sell 1 square inch to keep the public off it.
    yeah. I get that
    AS GOES THE CHURCH, SO GOES THE NATION

  9. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    180
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 49 Times in 35 Posts
    Congratulations
    7
    Congratulated 14 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by highplainsdrifter View Post
    That is easier said then done. Most state land is actually "state school land". It was granted to the states by the federal government at statehood. Most state constitutions say state school lands must be managed for profit with revenue going to fund public education. That "for profit" requirement makes management of these lands VERY different than federal land. Colorado, for example, sells hunting access to Colorado Parks and Wildlife in order to make money for schools. Thankfully Wyoming does not do that. Most Wyoming state school land is open to hunting if you can get to it. But you can't camp on it unless you are in an established campground of which there are very few.

    Because of the "for profit" requirement, activities that can produce the most revenue have the upper hand. Transferring federal land to the states would be a disaster for outdoor recreation unless we are willing to start paying enough to be competitive.
    All state public land was transferred as part of the requirements of the enabling act that created each state west of the original 13 states. All of those western states are required by the federal government to use specified public lands as a state resource to fund the development of their educational systems. Your assumption that "Most state constitutions say that state school lands must be managed for profit" is just that, an assumption, without proof (showing a state by accounting for the law), I don't believe that you're correct. I assume that some say that it's possible that some state enabling acts say something about profit but I doubt if most do. Most use language similar to

    "the proceeds from the sale and other permanent disposition of any of the said lands and from every part thereof, shall constitute permanent funds for the support and maintenance of the public schools and the various State institutions for which the lands have been granted. Rentals on leased lands, interest on deferred payments on lands sold, interest on funds arising from these lands, and all other actual income, shall be available for the maintenance and support of such schools and institutions..."

    Notice that there is no mention of the lands being managed for profit, it says that all actual income shall be used for the support of the schools. So your premise that the lands sales are being managed for profit and that makes how the land is sold different isn't valid. Besides, your Colorado example doesn't say that Colorado is selling the lands off, your example says that the state is selling hunting access rights, so the state isn't getting rid of the land, it's managing the land use in a self-sustaining manner, that sounds like a good thing to me. In your Wyoming example it looks to me like their emphasis is on ensuring that the land use doesn't create a negative environmental impact due to an uncontrolled number of campsites in places where they might damage the environment - again, nothing here that sounds like a bad thing to me.

    I suspect that you are mistakenly thinking that the enabling acts require there to be a profit when in fact it's trust law that you are referring to. All trusts are required to benefit the beneficiaries of the trust and most trusts are setup to be a source of profit for the beneficiaries so it's easy to misconstrue the "for profit" issue. Regardless, in regards to the state public lands, their trusts designate the schools as the beneficiaries so that's who must benefit from any public land monies. If you think about the mechanics of school funding then you have to ask yourself; why, in light of the modern awareness of the benefits of renewable resource management, would a state sell off public lands that are the source of maintenance monies for their school system. If you sell the lands then the source of money for your schools goes away and you will have to increase taxes (which can end political careers) but if you lease the lands then those monies will always be available.

    So many people jump to conclusions when they discuss this land use issue that we rarely have any real debate on facts. One person recently answered a post I made by saying "and yet they still do" (referring to his claim that the states still sell off public land). Again, I doubt if he can prove it and even if he could find facts that prove some state is selling public lands irresponsibly I doubt if he'd find more than a couple of current instances. Yes, we always here about what some western state did in the 1800's but there have been a lot of changes in the world-view of state land management since then and laws have been enacted to help detect and stop abuse by the unscrupulous people that will always exist and there are just a many crooks per capita in federal government as there are in state government but in a state you have a better chance of seeing their crooked activities and stopping them sooner than in the federal government.
    Last edited by rammont; 12-26-2017 at 01:01 PM.

  10. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bend, Orygun
    Posts
    1,231
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 402 Times in 298 Posts
    Congratulations
    2
    Congratulated 11 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by kidoggy View Post
    yeah. I get that
    That was for Rammont who evidently doesn't stray far from home to hunt.


    The Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) is the administrative arm of the State Land Board, Oregon’s longest-serving board. Established by the Oregon Constitution in 1859, the Land Board has been composed of the Governor (chair), Secretary of State and State Treasurer throughout its history.

    At statehood, the federal government granted Oregon 3.4 million acres – about 6 percent – of the new state’s land to finance public education. Though only about 1/5 of the original acreage remains, DSL continues to manage land and other resources dedicated to the Common School Fund for K-12 education. The Land Board is trustee of the fund.

    The Department of State Lands (DSL) has an active program for land sales and exchanges. The agency’s Real Estate Asset Management Plan directs DSL to evaluate and sell smaller or difficult-to-manage lands. These sales have priority over land sales requested by individuals through the application process, which are initiated by submitting a land sale or exchange application, along with a $750 non-refundable application processing fee.



    May of 2017 ....

    By Rob Davis

    rdavis@oregonian.com

    The Oregonian/OregonLive

    The Elliott State Forest, the 82,500-acre Coast Range parcel the state nearly sold to a timber company, will stay in public ownership, bringing an end to Oregon's years-long flirtation with divesting the land.

    Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, Secretary of State Dennis Richardson and state Treasurer Tobias Read voted Tuesday in Salem to halt the sale, pulling the remote forest back from the brink of a plan that was wildly unpopular with hunters, anglers and environmental groups.
    Last edited by WapitiBob; 12-26-2017 at 01:10 PM.

  11. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    180
    Thanks
    36
    Thanked 49 Times in 35 Posts
    Congratulations
    7
    Congratulated 14 Times in 2 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by kidoggy View Post
    yet they still sell it off.

    MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A BLESSED NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOURS!
    Who, what, when, where, and why?

    Give me specifics not generalized assumptions. What state is currently selling off public lands? Why are they selling it? If you can't answer those questions then you are just spreading false information. This is exactly why we can never get problems like this resolved, people just make emotional accusations without any proof.

 

 
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •